I consider wikipedia a co-op of sorts but google, facebook, cell phone companies, oil companies all seem to eventually become cartels of sorts.
E.g. in the beginning actors wanting a certain market good could be fighting very hard for it, but once acquired, over time, maybe across generations, energy put in place to retain said resource will begin to decrease. This is where "solutions" will come in place mostly in the form of increasing "efficiency"(put less energy) by centralization.
Take a look at US retail. In colonial times you had to provide for yourself and your family, hunt, farm, etc. While that continued for a long time more and more actors would pop up on the market doing hunting wholesale increasing efficiency for the community. The hidden tradeoff is a raise of a monopoly in said community so that efficiency wasn't really free. In the beginning people clearly understood the tradeoff and acted accordingly, their children understood it less. Snowball this to current days where many rural places in the US have only a Walmart as the single place where they exchange money for things, where culture is concentrated.
There are things that authorities can do of course, but this cycle is very old(described many times in the Bible for example) and it's up to people in the end to maintain a healthy market by directing decisions towards preventing monopolies. (e.g. co-ops)
Yes. The cycle is: Use capital from investors to capture (or discover/create) a market, build a defensible 'moat' to exclude other entrants, and once secure extract money from the market to return to investors.
In the simplest and most benign case, the moat is an economy of scale and/or network effect (the biggest is the biggest because it is the biggest and provides more ROI because it is the biggest).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
Basically, the market forces favor greed.